'67 Front Springs (BB)Part#

[Ray G.]

Hello;

Have grp#7412 part# 88913485 front springs on my shelf.

Will the trim height be correct for my 390 , no A/C , PS, or PB ?

Thank you in advance.
Ray

[John H.]

Re: '67 Front Springs (BB)Part#

Ray -

The original spring was #3888250, code "EB"; the number you posted must be a later Service supercession number - don't know if the specs are the same or not - maybe Joe knows.

[Joe L.]

Re: '67 Front Springs (BB)Part#

Ray -

The original spring was #3888250, code "EB"; the number you posted must be a later Service supercession number - don't know if the specs are the same or not - maybe Joe knows.

John and Ray-----


The GM #88913485 springs are not a direct supercession for the GM #3888250 spring nor are they a direct supercession for ANY other original spring for a Corvette. They are a Delco parts system replacement spring also known as Delco #45H0172 cataloged for a wide array of C3 applications, including 1968-74 big blocks without C-60 and 68-82 small blocks with C-60. They were never cataloged for any C2 application. Except for F-41, there was never any commonality between coil springs for C2 and C3 Corvettes. So, I'd be reluctant to install a set of these springs on a C2. It is possible that they might work ok, though. But, you'd be "rolling the dice".

[Bill M.]

Re: '67 Front Springs (BB)Part#

I bought a set of 3888250 springs for my '65 396 no A/C no P/S back in the 70s. I installed them and the car sat way too high in front. I think the service part springs are just too long; I see a lot of C2s sitting way too high in front. I'm guessing that the service parts were too long for production after the bulldozing process and got thrown into service?

I don't have a recommendation for a replacement because I went F40. Maybe someone has found a good spring in the aftermarket?

[Ray G.]

Re: '67 Front Springs (BB)Part#

Thanks Bill

[Stephen L.]

Re: '67 Front Springs (BB)Part#

I purchased a set of BB no air front springs #SU12C from Volunteer Vettes. About $75 ea

My original springs caused the front to look like it was sagging.

The new springs had a great look for about 6 months (car was near level) and then eventually compressed to the same look as my originals.

I guess BB cars just have that look.... Photos attached

[Ray G.]

Re: '67 Front Springs (BB)Part#

Hello Steve;
That's a good trim height.
Your Corvette looks excellent.
Just don't like it when they get much lower.

Thanks
Ray

[Bill M.]

Re: '67 Front Springs (BB)Part#

Hello Steve;
That's a good trim height.
Your Corvette looks excellent.
Just don't like it when they get much lower.

Thanks
Ray

I agree. I'm gonna buy a pair. I'm getting too old for F40!

[Joe L.]

Re: '67 Front Springs (BB)Part#

I bought a set of 3888250 springs for my '65 396 no A/C no P/S back in the 70s. I installed them and the car sat way too high in front. I think the service part springs are just too long; I see a lot of C2s sitting way too high in front. I'm guessing that the service parts were too long for production after the bulldozing process and got thrown into service?

I don't have a recommendation for a replacement because I went F40. Maybe someone has found a good spring in the aftermarket?

Bill----


The GM #3888250 springs were not originally used for 1965 L-78. That application used the GM #3851100, the same spring used for 1965 small blocks. Dealers were later advised to install the 3888250 springs if the customer complained about a "too low" front ride height. When they were new, 1965 L-78's appeared "low" in the front.

[Bill M.]

Re: '67 Front Springs (BB)Part#

Bill----


The GM #3888250 springs were not originally used for 1965 L-78. That application used the GM #3851100, the same spring used for 1965 small blocks. Dealers were later advised to install the 3888250 springs if the customer complained about a "too low" front ride height. When they were new, 1965 L-78's appeared "low" in the front.

Joe:

I probably pulled 3851100s out when I installed the 3888250. Guess I'll try putting those back in before buying new ones! I prefer low.

Thanks!

[Wayne M.]

Re: '67 Front Springs (BB)Part#

Bill----


The GM #3888250 springs were not originally used for 1965 L-78. That application used the GM #3851100, the same spring used for 1965 small blocks. Dealers were later advised to install the 3888250 springs if the customer complained about a "too low" front ride height. When they were new, 1965 L-78's appeared "low" in the front.

Joe -- what you say sounds logical; are you aware of a TSB that backs this up ? My AIM shows no 3888250 for '65 BB, and the UPC L78 Sheet A2 says 396 front AND rear suspension are ASSEMBLED same as F40 (whatever that means). The front suspension UPC 3 sheet 4 shows standard 3851100 (sticker ED) and F40 3832518 (sticker EA), but nothing for L78.

Furthermore, my P&A30 catalog, Rev May 1 and July 1 1965 shows no 3888250 # anywhere.

So maybe my front sag is factory + age .

[Bill M.]

Re: '67 Front Springs (BB)Part#

I purchased a set of BB no air front springs #SU12C from Volunteer Vettes. About $75 ea

I think this '66 is sitting too high. Don't know if it has SU12C...

[Michael H.]

Re: '67 Front Springs (BB)Part#

So maybe my front sag is factory + age .

I remember the nose of brand new 65 396 cars being at least an inch lower than a small block car. (they also leaned slightly to one side but I don't remember which way)

Several years ago, a friend removed a set of 3851100 springs from a very late 65 396 car. Still had the green tags. I don't remember the VIN but it was very near the end.
I'm about 99.9% sure no 3888250 66 springs were used in any 65's.

[Michael H.]

Re: '67 Front Springs (BB)Part#

I think this '66 is sitting too high. Don't know if it has SU12C...

Wow... that nose is pretty high. I wonder if the owner was a victim of the error in early/mid 70's parts books that incorrectly showed the 3888251 big block with A/C spring for big block cars that didn't have A/C? The 3888250 and 3888251 applications were reversed in many parts books.

[Joe L.]

Re: '67 Front Springs (BB)Part#

Joe -- what you say sounds logical; are you aware of a TSB that backs this up ? My AIM shows no 3888250 for '65 BB, and the UPC L78 Sheet A2 says 396 front AND rear suspension are ASSEMBLED same as F40 (whatever that means). The front suspension UPC 3 sheet 4 shows standard 3851100 (sticker ED) and F40 3832518 (sticker EA), but nothing for L78.

Furthermore, my P&A30 catalog, Rev May 1 and July 1 1965 shows no 3888250 # anywhere.

So maybe my front sag is factory + age .

Wayne-----


It seems to me that I've somewhere seen a service bulletin regarding the "low front ride height" for 1965 with L-78. I do not recall just where, though. I think it was issued in very late 1965 or early 1966. This was not something that dealers did for all 1965 L-78 cars, though. It was something done only for owners of such cars who complained that the front ride height was too low.

In "GM-speak", the AIM specification of standard 3851100 (ED) and F-40 3832518 (EA) means that the 3851100 was to be used for all applications except F-40. And, that's exactly consistent with what everything else indicates was done.

I have no idea why they used the term "assembles same as F-40" for L-78 suspension. Normally, I would expect "assembles same as PRODUCTION". No matter, though, because F-40 assembles the same as PRODUCTION so either phrase says the same thing.